DISTRIBUTABLE
(98)
Judgment No.
SC 113/02
Civil
Appeal No. 234/01
ECON
SPAR v DAVID S BANDA
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU
CJ, CHEDA JA & GWAUNZA AJA
HARARE,
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 & JANUARY 20, 2003
C
Selemani,
for the appellant
C
Ngwenya,
for the respondent
CHEDA JA:
The issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the respondents
conduct falls under Group III offences or
Group IV offences
of the Code of Conduct of the National Employment Council for the
Commercial Sector.
The
offences under Group III provide for a final warning in writing
for a first offence, and dismissal for a second offence,
provided the
warning is still valid as it should be valid for twelve months.
The
respondents conduct was explained in detail by witnesses who gave
evidence before the Deputy Chairman of the Labour Relations
Tribunal
(the Tribunal). In short, the respondent insulted the manager
and behaved towards him in a manner that was very
threatening.
There was no physical contact in the form of assault. He, however,
threatened the manager to the extent that the
manager wanted to close
the shop.
Elliot says
the respondent shouted at Mr Maluwa, the manager, and verbally
abused him. It is clear that the respondents
conduct was
unacceptable. It gives the picture of a rude and difficult person
who has no respect for his seniors.
Despite all
this, his conduct still falls under Group III offences, where it
is provided as follows:
4. Violence
and other related offences
Threatening to
harm, or threatening to do physical injury to any other person in the
workplace.
Using abusive,
offensive, threatening or insulting language.
The penalty
for this conduct for the first offence is not dismissal but a final
warning in writing. The penalty of dismissal for
the second offence
is only when the written warning is still valid.
It was
stated that the respondent had breached these conduct provisions and
received warnings before, but no details were given
as to what he
did, when he was warned and whether the warnings were in writing as
stipulated in the Code of Conduct. It cannot
just be assumed that
because he had committed offences before, the warnings were in
writing and still valid. There is a need to
prove this correctly
before a penalty can be imposed on that basis.
It was not
correct to charge the respondent with the more serious offence under
Group IV offences, as his conduct does not
fit into those
offences. Had he behaved as stated in Group IV offences, it
would have been appropriate to dismiss him.
In my view,
the respondents conduct falls under Group III offences and he
should not be dismissed.
The
appellant submitted that assault was not defined and the Court should
be guided by the criminal law regarding the definition
of assault.
I do not consider this necessary because the provisions of Group III
offences are set out in such a way that they
clearly distinguish
between threats of assault or threatening to do physical bodily harm
from those referred to in Group IV
offences. It is clear that
the authors of the Code of Conduct did not mean that threatening
physical injury amounted to assault
as provided for in Group IV
offences. The word assault is not used in Group III offences
but is used in Group IV offences.
If the
respondent threatened to do physical injury, it cannot be said he
assaulted the manager. Such an interpretation would result
in the
respondent being unfairly brought within the ambit of Group IV
offences and this would result in a miscarriage of justice.
I agree with
the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
The
appeal is dismissed with costs.
CHIDYAUSIKU
CJ: I agree.
GWAUNZA
AJA: I agree.
Byron
Venturas & Travlos,
appellant's legal practitioners
Karuwa
& Associates,
respondent's legal practitioners